chore(build): unify rustflags for all targets

[BugenZhao]

I hereby agree to the terms of the Singularity Data, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

After rust-lang/cargo#11114, we're able to unify rustflags for all targets.

There are four mutually exclusive sources of extra flags. They are checked in order, with the first one being used:

1. CARGO_ENCODED_RUSTFLAGS environment variable.
2. RUSTFLAGS environment variable.
3. All matching target.<triple>.rustflags and target.<cfg>.rustflags config entries joined together.
4. build.rustflags config value.

This PR also adds the step of clippy check without test targets in CI.

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)

Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)

• fix: fix clippy options (rustflags) #5667 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6113 (4935116) into main (49cc50d) will increase coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 59.18%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6113      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.70%   74.82%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         933      931       -2     
  Lines      149025   148964      -61     
==========================================
+ Hits       111330   111458     +128     
+ Misses      37695    37506     -189     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	74.82% <59.18%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...rc/ctl/src/cmd_impl/hummock/list_version_deltas.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/frontend/src/handler/query.rs	18.75% <0.00%> (-0.78%)	⬇️
src/frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/stream.rs	54.71% <0.00%> (-1.60%)	⬇️
src/meta/src/hummock/compaction_group/manager.rs	66.55% <0.00%> (-11.01%)	⬇️
src/meta/src/hummock/manager/mod.rs	73.27% <0.00%> (-1.49%)	⬇️
src/meta/src/lib.rs	0.92% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
src/meta/src/rpc/service/hummock_service.rs	3.64% <0.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
src/rpc_client/src/meta_client.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/utils/pgwire/src/error.rs	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/utils/pgwire/src/pg_protocol.rs	57.39% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
... and 27 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[xxchan]

Also add it to risedev? Otherwise it might be confusing if risedev c passed but ci failed

[jon-chuang]

Could I ask what is the purpose of adding this? Is it to test without sync_point? Or make the check run faster?

[BugenZhao]

Also add it to risedev?

This will make the checking slower and I'm not sure whether it is worth it. 🥵

Could I ask what is the purpose of adding this?

For example, there're two unused imports in hummock/mod.rs shown as warnings when we build with risedev d, but cannot be checked with --all-targets --all-features.

[xxchan]

This will make the checking slower and I'm not sure whether it is worth it. 🥵

Then I prefer not include it even in CI. Just manually fix it from time to time, or simply don't fix it 🥵

[jon-chuang]

So, according to the priority list in the PR description, am I right to say that this is considered build.rustflags and hence has lower priority than target.rustflags?

[BugenZhao]

This is a new feature named "profile rustflags" which is not mentioned in the doc. It's joined with 3).

     Running `rustc --crate-name regex_syntax --edition=2018 /home/bugenzhao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/regex-syntax-0.6.27/src/lib.rs --error-format=json --json=diagnostic-rendered-ansi,artifacts,future-incompat --crate-type lib --emit=dep-info,metadata,link -Ctarget-cpu=native -C embed-bitcode=no -C debuginfo=2 -C debug-assertions=off --cfg 'feature="default"' --cfg 'feature="unicode"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-age"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-bool"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-case"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-gencat"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-perl"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-script"' --cfg 'feature="unicode-segment"' -C metadata=9940732c2dd3c8e5 -C extra-filename=-9940732c2dd3c8e5 --out-dir /home/bugenzhao/work/risingwave/target/release/deps -L dependency=/home/bugenzhao/work/risingwave/target/release/deps --cap-lints allow -Ctarget-feature=+avx2 --cfg tokio_unstable -Funused_must_use '-Wclippy::dbg_macro' '-Wclippy::disallowed_methods' '-Wclippy::disallowed_types' '-Wclippy::doc_markdown' '-Wclippy::explicit_into_iter_loop' '-Wclippy::explicit_iter_loop' '-Wclippy::inconsistent_struct_constructor' '-Wclippy::unused_async' '-Wclippy::map_flatten' '-Wclippy::no_effect_underscore_binding' '-Wclippy::await_holding_lock' '-Wrustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links' -Wfuture_incompatible -Wnonstandard_style -Wrust_2018_idioms -Clink-arg=-fuse-ld=lld -Clink-arg=-Wl,--no-rosegment`

[jon-chuang]

Oh I see. In this case target-cpu native may not be desirable. As it would mean we may not have cross-target compatible binary, which we would want in a release binary.

We probably only want this flag if the target does not correspond to aarch or x86. We may want to ignore these corner cases (powerpc??).

So maybe we do not need this flag... although I'm not sure if target triple target.x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu also includes x86 on mac and windows?

[BugenZhao]

Okay. Let's remove this flag. I believe we only care about the performance under Linux with x86-64 and aarch64 for now. Let's tweak it in the future, if necessary.